Re: [wmii] Automatic destruction of views

On 4/21/06, Denis Grelich <denisg_AT_ueberl33t.info> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I find it quite cumbersome that views that don't have any clients are
> destroyed automatically.

Well, creating them automatically, but having to destroy them manually
would be quite weird and inconsistent I think...

> Firstly, it adds some unpredictability: you don't know where you end up
> when your current view is destroyed.

True.

> Secondly, the current behaviour is quite annoying in that respect that it
> forces me to re-type the tagname if I accidently destroyed a window or if I
> want to remove a tag from a window but add another client to that view.

The same applies to columns, if you want to remove a client from a
column, but add another one to it, you just have to either do that in
the correct order (add new client, than remove the other one), or
recreate the column; the same does and should apply to views.

> Last but not least, this behaviour was introduced as a means to add some
> consistency to column behaviour, but actually, there is about zero relation
> between clients and views?

There's definitaly a relation between frames, columns and views:
allowing empty ones is undynamic, and on top of that allowing some of
them to be empty but not others would be inconsistent as well; if you
cannot select empty views, views shouldn't be allowed to remain in
existence when they become empty either; as soon as something becomes
empty, it becomes obsolete, I believe it's good that this applies to
all 'objects' in wmii (frames, columns, and views).

>From my point of view, the old situation, where empty views would sort
of autodestruct, but only after you _manually_ switched away from
them, was just plain weird... (imagine having that scheme for frames
and columns...)

Greetings, Sander.
Received on Fri Apr 21 2006 - 14:30:48 UTC